Plain thesis: Act One narrates Frontier's own published offtake mechanics faithfully (the 8-criteria review, pay-on-delivery, conditions precedent, grace periods, buyer-side MFN, right of first offer), all real, all cited from Frontier's own pages. Act Two is the one concept addition: the identical clause shape, applied to a single EWP work packet instead of a $30–50M multi-year deal. Everything in Act Two is a concept illustration, EcoWealth has no funding relationship with Frontier or any Frontier-listed pathway; nothing below was run against a real Frontier deal.
/apply, /apply/offtake, and the offtake-template writing post), not a live call EcoWealth made against any Frontier system. Act Two is clearly marked Concept throughout: a proposed application of the same clause shape to EWP's existing work-packet lifecycle. No application was submitted to Frontier, no contact was made, and no real Frontier deal is referenced by name in Act Two.Per /apply/offtake: a candidate screen, then a full application (TEA spreadsheet, MRV approach, capacity plan), reviewed against Frontier's own published bar: 10,000+ tonnes deliverable within 5 years, validated at pilot scale under real conditions.
Durability (>1,000 years storage), footprint, cost (path to <$100/t), capacity (>0.5 Gt/yr potential), net negativity, additionality, verifiability, safety, then Approach → Execution → Portfolio → Acceleration as decision lenses.
A physical site visit precedes the diligence memo; the contract itself negotiates off Frontier's own CC0 template: Conditions Precedent gate a Commencement Date, a separate Commercial Operation Date gates full-rate delivery.
Per Frontier's own template framing: "no money is required to be paid by Frontier buyers" if delivery conditions aren't met. A missed date gets a grace period, not a penalty clause, deliberately excluding the security/insurance apparatus of a typical renewable-energy PPA because it would kill first-of-a-kind projects.
An early buyer gets a Most-Favored-Nation clause (rewarded for going first, instead of a price escalator), an 18-month post-termination exclusivity window (protecting buyers if a supplier's shortfall terminates the deal), and a Right of First Offer on the supplier's future volume.
Nothing about Frontier's own template, review, or offtake mechanics changes here. The only move: run the identical sequence (screen → review → site visit → pay-on-delivery → grace period → MFN → ROFO) against one funded, proof-verified EWP work packet, at a scale Frontier's own $10M application minimum was never built to reach.
Where Frontier's "full application" is a TEA spreadsheet, EWP's work-definition library is already standards-registered and method-backed: the scope, safety plan, funding path, and proof requirements are the packet's own schema, not a separate document to draft.
Durability, additionality, and verifiability map onto EWP's existing tCO2e mapping and proof bar; capacity and cost are the packet's funding amount and wage. The "multidisciplinary review" is the work-definition's own standards registration, checked once per definition, not once per packet.
Instead of a half-day Frontier site visit, the claimant supplies photo + GPS + signature proof directly at the field: the same evidentiary bar, produced by the person doing the work rather than a third-party reviewer.
EWP already only settles after approved proof (pay-on-delivery, exactly Frontier's shape). The "grace period, not liquidated damages" posture already exists too: a claim that expires (24-hour TTL) just releases back to the pool, no penalty, no claim held hostage, the same non-punitive logic Frontier deliberately built into its own template for first-of-a-kind suppliers.
This is the one genuinely new idea: a funder who backs the first packet at a location or work-definition could get a rate-lock (MFN) on the next posting of the same type, and a right of first offer on the next packet from the same crew or place, mirroring Frontier's buyer-side reward mechanic for a commons-pool or bulk-funder structure EWP doesn't yet have.
Offtake: $30M–$50M
Term: multi-year (2024–2030)
Delivery unit: 50,000–200,000+ tonnes
Review: multidisciplinary team,
half-day site visit
Buyer: a corporate AMC member
Packet: $0.10–a few dollars
Term: a single claim window
Delivery unit: one proven work unit
Review: automated (standards-
registered definition)
Funder: anyone, or any agent,
keyless via x402
This concept changes nothing about how Frontier's own offtake mechanics, review board, or contract template work today, it only shows the identical shape running at a denomination Frontier's own minimums were never designed to serve.
→ See the drafted clause templates themselves in the Agent Kit
← Back to the hub